Eight years ago, The New York Times wrote an editorial about former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, incorrectly linking the 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords to a map circulated by Palin’s PAC that showed certain electoral districts under crosshairs.
Within 12 hours, the Times admitted its error in a correction but said it was an “honest mistake.”
Palin sued anyway. And lost — twice. A judge in the 2022 trial rejected Palin’s claims while the jury was deliberating. The jury was allowed to render its verdict, and that, too, went against Palin.
Yet, another trial in the case of Palin versus the Times started up again on Monday. How did we end up back in court?
In August of last year, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan wrote that the judge’s dismissal of the lawsuit in the 2022 trial while the jury was deliberating intruded on the jury’s work.
In addition, The Associated Press’ Larry Neumeister wrote at the time, “It also found that the erroneous exclusion of evidence, an inaccurate jury instruction and an erroneous response to a question from the jury tainted the jury’s decision to rule against Palin. It declined, however, to grant Palin’s request to force Rakoff off the case on grounds he was biased against her. The 2nd Circuit said she had offered no proof.”
So, to sum it up, the case is going back to trial, but has anything really changed since the first time around, when both the judge and the jury ruled against Palin?
The New York Times’ David Enrich and Katie Robertson wrote, “Much of the trial is expected to be a repeat of the first. Most of the witnesses, evidence and legal arguments will be the same, including The Times’s defense that its mistakes were inadvertent and did not harm Ms. Palin. The same federal judge, Jed S. Rakoff, will be presiding in the same courtroom in the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse in Lower Manhattan.”
Actually, something has changed.
“What has changed is the country,” Enrich and Robertson wrote. “Trust in the media has declined, and the Manhattan jury pool may have shifted to the right. A number of defamation lawsuits in the past three years have resulted in eye-popping payments, raising the stakes in the Palin case. And the retrial comes as President Trump and his administration have attacked the notion of an independent press, deploying litigation, investigations and other strong-arm tactics against news organizations.”
But there’s something bigger at stake than what little Palin might personally gain from winning a suit.
As Enrich and Robertson noted, “If Ms. Palin prevails, Mr. Trump and his allies will almost certainly promote the victory as a powerful rebuke of the press. Her lawyers have said they hope to use the case as a vehicle to get the Supreme Court to reconsider longstanding precedents that make it harder for public figures to win lawsuits against journalists and others.”
The jury for the news trial was selected on Monday. Opening arguments are expected today in a trial that could last up to two weeks.
Keep an eye out
The New York Post’s Steven Nelson reported Monday that the Trump administration will soon ask lawmakers to cut funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds PBS and NPR. Rumors have been circulating for weeks that this might be coming. Many Republicans have accused PBS and NPR of having a liberal, anticonservative slant, and defunding them has long been a rallying cry and threat.
Bloomberg’s Gregory Korte and Erik Wasson reported that Trump will ask lawmakers to cut more than $9 billion in funding for PBS and NPR, as well as some foreign aid in the current fiscal year, “an attempt to employ a little-used legislative tactic for reducing spending already approved by Congress. The proposal — known as a rescission package — would codify cuts identified by President Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency.”
Korte and Wasson point out that “PBS and NPR receive a small portion of their funding from federal sources, with the radio broadcaster pulling in 1% directly from US government sources. PBS’s budget includes 16% of its funding from the federal government. The networks also receive money from sponsors and individual donors.”
The report says, “The White House plans to send the package to Congress when lawmakers return from their Easter recess on April 28, the official said. That would start a 45-day period during which the administration can legally withhold the funding. If Congress votes down the plan or does nothing, the administration must release the money back to the intended recipients. The package can pass the Senate with just 50 votes rather than the usual 60 votes. Congress can amend the package, removing cuts it doesn’t favor.”
The right call
The great Sam Rosen, who has been the play-by-play voice on the New York Rangers hockey games on TV since 1984, had announced before the season that this would be his last. With the Rangers missing the playoffs, his last game will be Thursday night.
Now we know who will replace him, and it’s no surprise. Kenny Albert, who has been calling Rangers games on the radio since the mid-1990s, will succeed Rosen, according to the New York Post’s Mollie Walker.
Albert, son of legendary sports announcer Marv Albert, is already one of the best sports broadcasters in the business. He is the lead play-by-play announcer on TNT’s coverage of the NHL and also calls NFL games for Fox Sports.
Media tidbits
Hot type
More resources for journalists
- Perfect your editing with the Poynter ACES Advanced Certificate. Enroll now.
- Learn ways to preserve your mental health while crafting meaningful journalism centering sensitive stories. Enroll now.
- Integrate principled AI guidelines into your newsroom operations. Start here.
- Update your immigration policy expertise with Poynter's Beat Academy. Enroll now.
Have feedback or a tip? Email Poynter senior media writer Tom Jones at [email protected].